as my beloved Nikon D300 has breathed her life on my last Gigapixel Shooting I'm looking around with what Camera I should replace it.I'm not sure if I should stay with DX (D3200, D7100, D400 maybe soon) Sensor or go for FX (D600, D700, D800)? Will the better Quality of FX outrule the benefits of the 1,5x Crop?Hope you can help me finding the right decision! ;-)

Andreas Schnederle-Wagner

Last edited by Hellkeeper on Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

1) Lighter lenses.....2) Bigger magnification at the same focal length means better DOF at the same aperture...

Disadvantages:1) More noise due to smaller pixels2) Better DR of the larger sensor3) Better color rendition as well

Having said that I don't like what Nikon does camerawise these days. Both the 7100 and the 600 suffer from oil polution which is a problem especially with small apertures (F16 and smaller) since then these become verry apparant. The 5200 is not as HDR freindly though it can use a Promote Control (through an adapter), so that would help greatly....and the Sigma can be used up to 370 shooting with an effective 555. And remember with a whopping 24 Mpixel sensor with a DxO score of 84.....

Greets, Ed.

Last edited by Artisan New on Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hellkeeper wrote:Have to stay with Nikon as we got lot's of Nikkor Lenses - don't want to buy all new Lenses ... ;-)Would be most interested if we should stay with DX (D7100 / wait for D400) or go for FX? (D600/D800)

Andreas

Take a D800. You can set it from FX to DX if you want to use a DX-lens. So you have all options at hand.

My D800 is just amazing.. the image size are huuuuge.. Add a 300mm FX lens perhaps and wow.. Its a great all round camera since it will go to DX automatically for other lenses if you need to use them and its also got an inbuilt light meter which is awesome.. Great for indoors to find the Average light.. For Giga pixel, its got an inbuilt digital level too so great for setting level to the horizon...

Destiny:Once you asked me "what are my connections to Seitz", aka are my praise of the VRdrive paid for.Now I am returning the question to you: what are your connection to Nikon ? Do you have some kind of return for your praise of the D800 ?

Maybe I am more suspiscious than average but when I see praise for a spesific camera in a forum for stitching software I ask myself:Is there a paid PR behind this.

Actually Leifs. I find that question and comment rather rude to be honest.. I have no connection with any camera company... The question on this thread title was explicit to Nikon... So I answered since I own two Nikons, which I am very happy with.. I hope you will extend your suspicious mind to Klaus also suggesting using a D800, we wound't want you to be seen as being bias or hypercritical would we...

Also, I cannot remember ever asking you what your connections are with Seitz or anyone else for that matter.. Could you please provide a link to that post.. The only time I can remember ever asking if someone was affiliated with a product on this forum was about a Pole product, which for reasons I do not have to explain, knew that they were spammers...

In fact I purchased my VR Drive on what I read and my purchase was never influenced by anyone on this forum or who owned one....

I still would not go for the D800.....much to expensive and remember it's Gigapixels Des....not spheres....if he was happey shooting with a D300 (12 Mpixel) he will also be happy with D5200 at 24 Mpixels.....(the D7100 and D600).....I would not buy due to oil spillage issues. Oil droplets will throw the Kolor algorithm of killter....so if you wanna go FF buy a D8000 if not (and there are reasons why not but I don't like to repeat myself) use the D5200 (no reports of oil there).

And Leifs you can be sure I'm not affiliated to Nikon. But if Nikon is willing to send over a D800 I might consider......but they should get another hotglue person for the 10 pin connector since that is prone to break under stress..... as some research on the Web shows.

"some research on the web" also provides "some" bullshit. As is well known and also of no surprise regarding the zillions of nuts writing rather what they THINK instead of what IS.

But this is a - more or less - free world and everybody can write what he/she thinks.

The problem is to filter nonsense from valuable information.

As a matter of fact the D800 is a cheap camera - regarding the image-quality it provides and also regarding you need to do a lesser amount of shots due to itÂ´s high resolution.Besides of that it provides great dynamic and some other nice features i learned to value much in the short time iÂ´m working with it.

The image-quality viewed @100% is stunning. And THAT is what counts in the end.

Klaus

PS

IÂ´m not affilated to Nikon in any way - i just use Nikons for about 40 years . .

Last edited by klausesser on Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Destiny wrote:Actually Leifs. I find that question and comment rather rude to be honest..Destiny...

Sorry for beeing rude.Just do a search like the image below and you get a hint of why I got to the "enough is enough point".I guess Nikon is delighted for this much praise for free.

I've joined this forum for tips and news for shooting panos, stitching them and presenting them.I've NOT joined this forum to read members praising their their choice of DSRL system or D800's.In this part of the forum, "Hardware", I expected it to be about pano-hardware. Not about camera hardware like Nikon vs Canon etc

Exactly Andrew, as you said this entire thread is about HARDWARE and the title is about NIKON and I responded about Nikon... So, Lief.. I suggest that if you ONLY joined this forum "for tips and news for shooting panos, stitching them and presenting them."; then I suggest you do not read or make comment, or respond or be so analytical about me on this 'pacifically dedicated to hardware thread'... .. and I guess if I were to be rude enough to do searches on your comments, I might find one or two that talk about Hardware... In fact I am certain I would but I am not going to be that rude....

Ed, I did actually suggest using the D800 'also' for indoors, which is nice to know that the D800 is an alrounder camera.. But as for Gigpixl with the right lens, and study tripod, it would make an awesome tool for this purpose due to the crisp high quality images and the emensice size of them, therefor reducing the time spent capturing Gigapixel images...

Oh. BTW.. I am not affiliated with Lens or Tripods.. But.. If I had a 300mm I would certainly boost about it.. .. but I don't....... yet..

Destiny..

mediavets wrote:

leifs wrote:In this part of the forum, "Hardware", I expected it to be about pano-hardware. Not about camera hardware like Nikon vs Canon etc

leifs

The sub-title of this Hardware section of the forum reads:

"In the panorama field, hardware is also part of the success. You can discuss here about it : camera, computer, pano head, anything"

Des the 800 is an awsome camera, but the 5200 is also nice (and 5 times cheaper). The point is, what are you shooting and what do you want to spend. What lens do you have, and how are you gonna use it. Knowing Gigapixel.at they shoot truly great pano's (up to 80 Gpixel) from Austrian mountaintops. That means long telephoto lenses and large DOF (sometimes even with the larger DOF of the D300 I see unsharpness in the foreground)....and in that case I'd opt for the DX 24 Mpixel sensor. Now remember also they have a dead camera (Nikon D300 R.I.P.) and need a replacement. So if they can wait till this autumn, they could go for the D400...I have some really convincing reports that it will be out, but please, please don't preorder......since Nikon has a tendency of building turds these day (as well as gemstones). And I shoot Nikon since I was 9 years old (Nikon F with a 50mm 1,8 Ai and have used and owned all F's since (except for the F6)) and stopped doing that when they went digital and just did not produce the camera I needed (small, light, capable and reliable).

I have a rather cool all metal 75-300 Nikon (that I use as a 150 till 500 at my OM-D) at my disposal and if you are smart (which you are) you would be on the prowl for a 300 mm as well...take an old manual lens from the middle 80th like the 300 4.5 IF/ED. I've owned one in the 90th and I should have kicked meself in the *** in a serious way when I sold it for the autofocus 75-300....it's not autofocus, but who cares for panorama.....(right Klaus). There's one on Ausy Ebay right now for 149 dollars but it has no collar and you need that (on the lens off course ). A good specimen will set you back 300 to 400 dollars.

Greets, Ed.

Last edited by Artisan New on Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

klausesser wrote:The pros and cons of cameras, lenses, heads, software and so on very well DO belong to the theme "panorama-shooting".Klaus

pros and cons of cameras can be discussed elsewhere. millions of forums.lenses for panos, heads, software are relevant to this forum,actually it would be a lot more interesting to learn pros and cons of Photomatix, Oloneo, Lightroom, DXO etc than dozens of posts about 5Dmk3 and D800. and ofcourse it must be interesting for members of this forum to learn about robotic heads for shooting panos. pros and cons.

leifs

Last edited by leifs on Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you want to learn more about Other software, Other than Kolor software you can, in the appropriate thread, or even start your own... APG is apart from being able to stitch panos and pano spheres, IS a gigapixel software app...

Destiny

leifs wrote:

klausesser wrote:The pros and cons of cameras, lenses, heads, software and so on very well DO belong to the theme "panorama-shooting".Klaus

pros and cons of cameras can be discussed elsewhere. millions of forums.lenses for panos, heads, software are relevant to this forum,actually it would be a lot more interesting to learn pros and cons of Photomatix, Oloneo, Lightroom, DXO etc than dozens of posts about 5Dmk3 and D800. and ofcourse it must be interesting for members of this forum to learn about robotic heads for shooting panos. pros and cons.

klausesser wrote:The pros and cons of cameras, lenses, heads, software and so on very well DO belong to the theme "panorama-shooting".Klaus

pros and cons of cameras can be discussed elsewhere. millions of forums.lenses for panos, heads, software are relevant to this forum,actually it would be a lot more interesting to learn pros and cons of Photomatix, Oloneo, Lightroom, DXO etc than dozens of posts about 5Dmk3 and D800. and ofcourse it must be interesting for members of this forum to learn about robotic heads for shooting panos. pros and cons.

leifs

I understand your point when the discussion is about brands. So i would prefer to crack it down to DX or FX and overall-resolution (but here you will end at Nikon or Canon anyway.

I can understand that you feel somewhat underrepresented using a somehow . . exotic format . .

On the other hand some brands have different features also relevant for pano-shooting. Features like resolution, dynamic, in terms of the D800 usable as DX and FX, Canon in terms of MagicLantern and so on.

So i guess sometimes the discussions legimately turn about brands sometimes as synonyms for dedicated features.

Ok - sometimes happens that users are so exited that they start to swoon over their lovely gadgets beyond technical facts . .

I guess we can tolerate it, do we.

Klaus

Last edited by klausesser on Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ah, yes, if it is discussed in civilised manour. But personally I don't like being called exotic just because I use a competent micro 4/3. A format that is used by photographers like Terry Richardson (Bill Richardson's son) to shoot Vogue covers. The pros and cons of every type of camera are more then obvious and need not to be discussed. Now there are some advocates of FF that are a bit like advocates of Leica (an exotic German camera maker well knows for even more exotic prices for hardware that is IMHO as obsolete as the Fukushima nuclear plant). They rave about the virtues of their sensors and never talk about the negative aspects. I owned a Nikon F5 (about as big as a D4) and I must say when I went digital I knew exactly what I didn't need. And when micro 4/3 came along despite it's shortcomings it was the only way my photography would work for me. Now as you can see I also own a truly professional analog camera (bought for penny's) and I must say the Olympus OM-D make me (and I can only talk about my experience of course) forget that. Both Michael Johnston and Ctein (from the Online Photographer are rather critical people and both use OM-D's as well), Ctein being on of the best printers in the USA (printing for people like Jim Marshal). But hey, feel free to carry on using FF, I could not care less. I rather live with the limitation of a camera I can afford and that fits my photography then dream about the IQ of a camera that I don't can nor more important wanna afford (to much risk in the field, since I don't work with a crew but on my own). I don't know but I guess weight is a factor as well.....an OM-D with a 75 1.8 mm ( a brilliant lens Leifs I'm jaelous), weighs in at around 700 grams. A Nikon D800 with an equally brilliant 135 weighs double that and it's a 2.8 versus a 1.8. A 135 1.8 for a FF....well lets not get carried away. I guess I made my point and as Susan Linssen from Seedling always sang:

I guess I made my points and I'm sorry if you missed them all. ((c) Seedling, 2001).

Artisan New wrote:Ah, yes, if it is discussed in civilised manour. But personally I don't like being called exotic just because I use a competent micro 4/3. A format that is used by photographers like Terry Richardson (Bill Richardson's son) to shoot Vogue covers. The pros and cons of every type of camera are more then obvious and need not to be discussed. Now there are some advocates of FF that are a bit like advocates of Leica (an exotic German camera maker well knows for even more exotic prices for hardware that is IMHO as obsolete as the Fukushima nuclear plant). They rave about the virtues of their sensors and never talk about the negative aspects. I owned a Nikon F5 (about as big as a D4) and I must say when I went digital I knew exactly what I didn't need. And when micro 4/3 came along despite it's shortcomings it was the only way my photography would work for me. Now as you can see I also own a truly professional analog camera (bought for penny's) and I must say the Olympus OM-D make me (and I can only talk about my experience of course) forget that. Both Michael Johnston and Ctein (from the Online Photographer are rather critical people and both use OM-D's as well), Ctein being on of the best printers in the USA (printing for people like Jim Marshal). But hey, feel free to carry on using FF, I could not care less. I rather live with the limitation of a camera I can afford and that fits my photography then dream about the IQ of a camera that I don't can nor more important wanna afford (to much risk in the field, since I don't work with a crew but on my own). I don't know but I guess weight is a factor as well.....an OM-D with a 75 1.8 mm ( a brilliant lens Leifs I'm jaelous), weighs in at around 700 grams. A Nikon D800 with an equally brilliant 135 weighs double that and it's a 2.8 versus a 1.8. A 135 1.8 for a FF....well lets not get carried away. I guess I made my point and as Susan Linssen from Seedling always sang:

I guess I made my points and I'm sorry if you missed them all. ((c) Seedling, 2001).

Greets, Ed.

Good lord, Ed . . . you turn each end every neutral technical discussion into a story about what YOU need or like or whatever - adding stories starting with Adam and Eve . . .

This is not about what YOU like or prefer - it was thought to be a sober and neutral survey of physical facts. FACTS - not likes. ItÂ´s completely uninteresting what brand someone uses.

ItÂ´s about physics. At least the TO thought it to be, i guess.

IÂ´n gonna pull out here because once again it becomes a kind of kindergarden dealing with personal likes or dislikes. IÂ´m not interested in that - and iÂ´m not interested reading your short-stories, sorry.

IÂ´m interested in physical correlations and a discussion which takes us further technically as well as aesthetically.

What "benefits of the 1,5x crop"? There are none - aside from the chance of using cheaper lenses.

Klaus, this was you statement and it's plain and simply incorrect....if you only reduce a camera to it's sensor you might be right in 2011 but we are living in 2013 now and things have changed. For instance (and this is physics) lets compare the sensor of the Canon 5D Mark III (3) with the Sensor of the OM-D....

Ah hell, Klaus you can look at DxO for yourself.....in fact the DR of the OM-D is even bigger then the DR of the 5D....but lets compare a D5200 with a D800...(and remember the new D400 will come without a AA filter which will greatly improve detail).

- D5200- Bitdepth: 24.2- Dynamic Range: 13,9- ISO:1284- Pricetag: 500 euro (approximation).....- Can work with Promotecontrol for unlimited HDR using a seperate shutter cable....- Can work with GPS.....- Hyperfocal 500/1.5 at 5.6 = 980 (http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html) being well withing the optimum range of the lens- Maximum magnification of 500 mm = 750/50 = 15 times- Maximum pixelcount 70 x 35 degrees as calculated by Papywizard: 113028 x 56525 = 6.4 Gpixel in 38 x 13 = 494 pictures (at 370 mm) which is logical since 24 Mpixel on half a sensor is 48 Mpixel on a full sensor, so you have to shoot double the pictures but you are rewarded with 1.5 times the resolution.

So having said that the guys shooting the London Gigapixel weren't half assed when they opted for an array of 7D's.....I would buy a D5200 and wait for the D400 (if they don't up in oil) and buy that too for the price of one D800....that is my point of view. And it's backed by physics all the way......as is everything I do.

Greets, Ed.

Last edited by Artisan New on Sat Aug 17, 2013 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And on thing about pixelcount.....why was Destiny right to invest in a D800 and not go the D5200 route? She is making VR spheres and in VR spheres using a FE things look different....since if we do the math here we only have 8 shots to fill the 360 globe and here the globe and the number of shots becomes the limiting factor. A 16 mm FE on a D800 will produce about 1,5 times more pixels then a D5200 using 10.5. But as soon as you use equilinear lenses things change for the benefit of the D5200 (even shooting a sphere with the same lens).

BTW, the GH3 has a nice trick up it's sleeve as well. It can shoot at full resolution without using it shutter...just on the electronic shutter , I hope to try that out early next year it should be great for stationary shoots (like architecture).

Greets, Ed.

Last edited by Artisan New on Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.